SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 27 Issue: 2

STATE RETREAT AND TRADE OPENNESS: LONG-RUN IMPACTS ON LABOR IN TURKISH MANUFACTURING

Osman Berke Duvan(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3711-8454
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate stable long-run relationships between export intensity, public-sector presence, labor productivity, and labor share.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the long-run effects of export orientation and the public sector’s industrial presence on labor productivity and the labor income share in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using annual data for the ISO 500 firms over 1983-2024, the analysis employs the ARDL bounds-testing framework to assess how trade liberalization and the gradual reduction of state participation relate to these outcomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate stable long-run relationships between export intensity, public-sector presence, labor productivity, and labor share.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Labor Productivity · Labor Share · Trade Liberalization

Abstract

This study examines the long-run effects of export orientation and the public sector’s industrial presence on labor productivity and the labor income share in Turkey. Using annual data for the ISO 500 firms over 1983-2024, the analysis employs the ARDL bounds-testing framework to assess how trade liberalization and the gradual reduction of state participation relate to these outcomes. The study also offers one of the first empirical evaluations linking the contraction of the public sector’s role to changes in labor’s share within large industrial enterprises. The findings indicate stable long-run relationships between export intensity, public-sector presence, labor productivity, and labor share. Export intensity is positively associated with steady-state productivity and with a higher equilibrium labor share. The public sector’s presence shows a more nuanced pattern: although negatively related to long-run productivity, it is positively linked to the labor share. Overall, the results suggest that structural shifts in ownership and market orientation have coincided with changes in productivity dynamics and income distribution across major industrial firms.

🔖

Cite This Article

Duvan, O. B. (2026). STATE RETREAT AND TRADE OPENNESS: LONG-RUN IMPACTS ON LABOR IN TURKISH MANUFACTURING. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 27 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1834920

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Acemoğlu, D., & Üçer, M. (2019). High-quality versus low-quality growth in Turkey: Causes and consequences (CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP14070). Centre for Economic Policy Research.
  2. Acharya, R., & Marjit, S. (2000). Globalisation and inequality: An analytical perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(39), 3503–3510. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4409777
  3. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.2.701
  4. Amess, K., & Roberts, B. M. (2007). The productivity effects of privatization: The case of Polish cooperatives. International Review of Financial Analysis, 16(4), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2007.03.005
  5. Arnold, D. (2022). The impact of the privatization of state-owned enterprises on workers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14, 343–380. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20190428
  6. Arocena, P., & Oliveros, D. (2012). The efficiency of state-owned and privatized firms: Does ownership make a difference? International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.06.029
  7. Aslam, A., Boz, E., Cerutti, E., Poplawski-Ribeiro, M., & Topalova, P. (2018). The slowdown in global trade: A symptom of a weak recovery? IMF Economic Review, 66, 440–479. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41308-018-0063-7
  8. Augier, P., Cadot, O., & Dovis, M. (2013). Imports and TFP at the firm level: The role of absorptive capacity. Canadian Journal of Economics, 46(3), 956–981. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fcaje.12034
  9. Azmat, G., Manning, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). Privatization and the decline of labour’s share: International evidence from network industries. Economica, 79, 470–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2011.00906.x
  10. Bayar, G. (2002). Effects of foreign trade liberalization on the productivity of industrial sectors in Turkey. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 38(5), 46–71.
  11. Bernard, A. B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both? Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(98)00027-0
  12. Bozatli, O., Bal, H., & Albayrak, M. (2022). Testing the export-led growth hypothesis in Turkey: New evidence from time and frequency domain causality approaches. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 31(8). https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2022.2144932
  13. Bremmer, I. (2010). The end of the free market: Who wins the war between states and corporations? Portfolio/Penguin.
  14. Clerides, S. K., Lach, S., & Tybout, J. R. (1998). Is learning by exporting important? Micro-dynamic evidence from Colombia, Mexico, and Morocco. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 903–947. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555784
  15. Dalgıç, B., Fazlıoğlu, B., & Karaoğlan, D. (2014). Entry to foreign markets and productivity: Evidence from a matched sample of Turkish manufacturing firms. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 24(5), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2014.948904
  16. DeWenter, K. L., & Malatesta, P. H. (2001). State-owned and privately owned firms: An empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labor intensity. American Economic Review, 91(1), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.320
  17. Dollar, D. (2005). Globalization, poverty, and inequality since 1980. The World Bank Research Observer, 20(2), 145–175. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/494031468163151334
  18. Duvan, O. B. (2025). Türkiye’de bölüşüm: En büyük 1000 sanayi kuruluşu üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Çalışma ve Toplum, 1(84), 311–348. https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1624024
  19. Gokcekus, O. (1997). Trade liberalization and productivity growth: New evidence from the Turkish rubber industry. Applied Economics, 29(5), 639–645.
  20. Goldberg, P. K., & Pavcnik, N. (2004). Trade, inequality, and poverty: What do we know? Evidence from recent trade liberalization episodes in developing countries (NBER Working Paper No. 10593). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w10593
  21. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/2298044
  22. Hoyos, R. E. D., & Iacovone, L. (2011). Economic performance under NAFTA: A firm-level analysis of the trade-productivity linkages. World Development, 44, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.008
  23. Karaalp-Orhan, H. S., & Günes, S. (2016). The effect of foreign trade on real wages: The case of Turkey. Prague Economic Papers, 25(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.559
  24. Karabarbounis, L. (2024). Perspectives on the labor share. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 38(2), 107–136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27301888
  25. Kocyigit, A., Bayat, T., Kayhan, S., & Senturk, M. (2015). Short- and long-term validity of export-led growth hypothesis in BRICS-T countries: A frequency domain causality approach. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 4(3), 117–129.
  26. Lundin, E. (2020). Effects of privatization on price and labor efficiency: The Swedish electricity distribution sector. The Energy Journal, 41(2), 247–274.
  27. Milanovic, B., & Squire, L. (2007). Does tariff liberalization increase wage inequality? Some empirical evidence. In A. Harrison (Ed.), Globalization and poverty (pp. 143–179). University of Chicago Press.
  28. Narayan, P. K., & Smyth, R. (2005). The residential demand for electricity in Australia: An application of the bounds testing approach to cointegration. Energy Policy, 33(4), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.011
  29. Nkoro, E., & Uko, A. K. (2016). Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) cointegration technique: Application and interpretation. Journal of Statistical and Econometric Methods, 5(4), 63–91.
  30. Okafor, L. E., Bhattacharya, M., & Bloch, H. (2017). Imported intermediates, absorptive capacity and productivity: Evidence from Ghanaian manufacturing firms. The World Economy, 40(2), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Ftwec.12467
  31. Okten, C., & Arin, K. P. (2006). The effects of privatization on efficiency: How does privatization work? World Development, 34(9), 1537–1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.01.004
  32. Olsson, M., & Tåg, J. (2025). What is the cost of privatization for workers? The Journal of Finance, 80(4), 1875–2437. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13462
  33. Onaran, O. (2009). Wage share, globalization and crisis: The case of the manufacturing industry in Korea, Mexico and Turkey. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692170802700435
  34. Oyvat, C. (2010). Globalization, wage shares and income distribution in Turkey. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 4(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq032
  35. Ozler, S., & Yilmaz, K. (2009). Productivity response to reduction in trade barriers: Evidence from Turkish manufacturing plants. Review of World Economics, 145, 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-009-0019-0
  36. Ozmucur, S. (1998). Privatization and the labor market in Turkey. In T. Bulutay (Ed.), Main characteristics and trend of the Turkish labour market (pp. 171–209). State Institute of Statistics.
  37. Pamuk, Ş. (2023). Türkiye’nin 200 yıllık iktisadi tarihi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  38. Pamukcu, T. (2003). Trade liberalization and innovation decisions of firms: Lessons from post-1980 Turkey. World Development, 31(8), 1443–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00087-1
  39. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  40. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Why global markets, states, and democracy cannot coexist. Oxford University Press.
  41. Sachs, J. D. (2005). The end of poverty. The Penguin Press.
  42. Saygili, S., & Taymaz, E. (2001). Privatization, ownership and technical efficiency: A study of the Turkish cement industry. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 74(4), 581–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8292.00182
  43. Stiglitz, J. E. (2024). The road to freedom: Economics and the good society. W. W. Norton & Company.
  44. Stolper, W. F., & Samuelson, P. A. (1941). Protection and real wages. The Review of Economic Studies, 9(1), 58–73.
  45. Tallant, D. (1993). Relative efficiency of public and private sector ownership and privatization of the Turkish cement industry. Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 7(1–2), 73–103.
  46. Tansel, A. (1998). Workers displaced due to privatization in Turkey: Before versus after displacement. METU Studies in Development, 25(4), 625–647.
  47. Topuz, G., & Dağdemir, Ö. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between trade openness, structural change, and income inequality under the Kuznets curve hypothesis: The case of Turkey. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 29(6), 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2019.1711146
  48. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017). World economic situation and prospects. United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/
  49. Zhou, M. (2016). Labor’s share of income, another key to understand China’s income inequality. In Labor’s share of income, another key to understand China’s income inequality (pp. 181–204). Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0173-4
  50. Zhu, S. C., & Trefler, D. (2005). Trade and inequality in developing countries: A general equilibrium analysis. Journal of International Economics, 65, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2003.11.005
  51. Zivot, E., & Andrews, W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251–270. https://users.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/718/ZivotAndrews1992.pdf